Homossexuais contra co-adopção: «Soy homosexual, no gay»: testimonio de Jean-Pier en la manifestación pro-familia de Roma

In ReL

El sábado 11 de enero en Roma tuvo lugar una manifestación en defensa de la familia, la primera organizada por La Manif Pour Tous Italia (www.lamanifpourtous.it) en la que participaron más de 4.000 personas.

Publicamos a continuación de forma íntegra el discurso de Jean-Pier Delaume-Myard, francés, un hombre con sentimientos homosexuales y que se define como homosexual, pero que está en contra de redefinir el matrimonio y de que se entreguen niños a parejas del mismo sexo, privándoles de la posibilidad de crecer con un padre y una madre.

Discurso de Jean-Pier Delaume-Myard,
Roma, 11 de enero de 2014

Queridos amigos, ¡buenas tardes a todos! Desgraciadamente no tengo la suerte de hablar vuestro bello idioma, por lo que os ruego que me permitáis hablar en francés. Soy muy feliz y es para mí un honor estar aquí en Italia, junto a vosotros, con La Manif pour Tous Italia.

Lo que nos reúne hoy aquí es el valor fundamental de la familia. Nosotros mismos formamos una bonita y gran familia que va más allá de las fronteras nacionales, porque la familia es una y universal.

Que se hable de esto aquí, en vuestro país Italia, como en el nuestro Francia, o en otros países europeos o en todo el mundo, no importa. De hecho, me gustaría recordar a mi amigo Bobby que lucha como nosotros en los Estados Unidos contra los lobbies gais porque no queremos que la mujer sea considerada una mercancía, no queremos que los niños sean privados voluntariamente de un padre o de una madre, o de ambos.

Conozco un poco Italia. He tenido ocasión de venir varias veces, en circunstancias distintas. La primera vez fue en 1981, después de una grave enfermedad que me había trastornado durante mi adolescencia. Para dar gracias al Señor por haberla superado fui a San Damiano, dónde aún vivía Mama Rosa que había visto a la Virgen María. Después tuve la suerte de venir a Roma para participar en una audiencia privada con el Papa Juan Pablo II. Pero he venido también en otras ocasiones. El vínculo que me une a Italia es también de tipo afectivo; de hecho, viví 8 años con un amigo italiano.

En el mes de noviembre de 2012, en Francia los medios de comunicación anunciaron que todas las personas homosexuales estaban a favor del matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo y que todos los homosexuales querían hijos.

En realidad me estaban robando mi voz, estaban robando nuestra voz, de nosotros homosexuales que no habíamos pedido nada de todo esto.

Por este motivo decidí coger papel y bolígrafo como un simple ciudadano y escribir en el sitio web de una conocida publicación semanal francesa: Le Nouvel Observateur.

Ese artículo, titulado “Soy homosexual, no gay: ¡detened esta confusión!” dio la vuelta rápidamente en la red con más de 110.000 visitas.

En el artículo escribo, entre otras cosas, que “no estoy orgulloso de mi orientación sexual, no más de lo que un hetero lo esté de la suya».

Quiero recordar claramente que “los gais hacen referencia a una cultura, a un estilo de vida. Necesitan que su carnicero, su panadero, su kiosquero sean gais. Quieren vivir con otros gais… Yo, como homosexual y como individuo de una nación, he elegido siempre habitar y actuar sin preocuparme de la orientación sexual de mis vecinos o de mis compañeros de trabajo”.

En el artículo planteo también una pregunta importante: “¿Por qué quieren una ley en favor del matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo? ¿Para las personas homosexuales o para los centenares de “gais” que viven en las zonas chic de París?”.

Después de esto hemos fundado un colectivo llamado HomoVox (www.homovox.com) que reúne a centenares y centenares de homosexuales que se oponen a la ley sobre el matrimonio gay.

He tenido la posibilidad de dar un testimonio en video y la he aceptado de buen grado. Después de tantos artículos y testimonios, el 25 de enero de 2012 me reuní con el Presidente de la República Francesa.

Cuando le dije que la ley sobre los matrimonios gais era en realidad el árbol detrás del cual se escondía el bosque de la maternidad subrogada y de la reproducción medicamente asistida, él me respondió: “No soy para nada favorable a esto y me expresaré en contra”.

En Francia tenemos serias dudas sobre esta cuestión. Sabemos que en ocasión de la presentación de la proxima ley sobre la familia, en marzo, algunos diputados de la actual mayoría depositarán enmiendas en favor de la reproducción medicamente asistida y de la maternidad subrogada.

Como homosexual, desde el principio de mi compromiso, no trabajo en favor de un partido político y menos aún en favor de una comunidad; a mí no me gusta el comunitarismo. Combato en conciencia y con todas mis fuerzas para que cada niño tenga un padre y una madre.

Si yo fuera heterosexual, habría perseguido el mismo fin, es decir, ¡el de la racionalidad!

Mi compromiso no tiene nada que ver con mi orientación sexual.

Me he comprometido porque si uno tiene un mínimo de compasión por los seres humanos, ciertamente no se puede aceptar que un niño se quede sin puntos de referencia sociales.

Me he comprometido porque si dentro de veinte años me encontrase con un chico o una chica, hijo de una pareja del mismo sexo, no quiero que me reproche por haberle privado de la posibilidad de tener un padre o una madre, como cada niño, hijo de una pareja divorciada, de una pareja de hecho o casada. ¡Para todos son necesarios un padre y una madre!

Me he comprometido porque mi deseo de tener hijos no tiene que tener como consecuencia la llegada al mundo de un niño sin el afecto materno.

Me he comprometido porque, como persona responsable, no quiero tener que responder un día a mi hijo, cuando me pregunte quién era su madre, que su identidad no es distinta al número de un cheque.

En Francia, La Manif Pour Tous no sólo es víctima de discriminación, sino que es objeto también de graves violencias por parte de la policía o de duras condenas judiciales. Estoy pensando en Nicolas, un joven de 23 años detenido el 19 de junio de 2013 por llevar puesta una sudadera de La Manif Pour Tous en los Campos Elíseos y condenado a ¡dos meses de cárcel!

Las Autoridades de mi país no han querido oir la voz de una petición que había recogido ¡700.000 firmas!

En Francia la ley que abre al matrimonio de las parejas del mismo sexo ha sido votada deprisa a mano alzada en su segunda lectura ¡con el fin de preservar la paz social!

En Francia las más altas autoridades han declarado que éramos 300.000 personas, cuando en realidad se han manifestado más de ¡un millón de ciudadanos!

Quisiera también aprovechar esta ocasión para dar las gracias de parte de La Manif Pour Tous a uno de vuestros connacionales, Luca Volontè, antes Presidente del PPE en Estrasburgo.

Gracias a uno de vosotros, queridos amigos italianos, el comité de los ministros del Consejo de Europa ha planteado con fecha 23 de abril de 2013 una pregunta al Gobierno francés acerca de la gestión de las manifestaciones en favor de la familia y ha pedido con insistencia al Gobierno que dé explicaciones. Cosa inédita en la patria de los derechos del hombre. Gracias Sr. Luca Volontè.

Si mañana en Francia o en Italia se aprobaran la maternidad subrogada o la reproducción asistida, desgraciadamente no seremos nosotros quienes pagaremos las consecuencias. Las pagarán, ante todo, los mismos niños, privados del derecho legítimo a la filiación directa. Les privaremos del derecho a tener un padre y una madre.

Pagarán las consecuencias los mismos homosexuales, porque son estas mismas leyes las que están creando la homofobia, no los que se manifiestan.

Hoy no tenemos necesidad de llevar puesto una vestido de novia para tener los mismos derechos.

El deseo de tener un hijo es una realidad singular y dolorosa. Yo lo sé. Pero nosotros homosexuales no pedimos a la sociedad un bricolaje legislativo para cambiar la realidad.

La política del gobierno francés no tiene otro objetivo más que el de matar a la Familia. El gobierno “familiafóbico” mata a la familia.

La Manif Pour Tous en Francia sigue pidiendo la abrogación de la ley que autoriza el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo.

Además de la necesaria abrogación de dicha ley, proponemos que se reconozca la filiación en el seno de la familia. Un niño no es una mercancía de trueque ni carne de cañón; es un ser humano que tiene el derecho de conocer el origen cultural, geográfico, social y religioso de sus padres.

En lo que respecta las próximas elecciones europeas, recordaremos a los candidatos la importancia de las decisiones que están llamados a tomar. Los candidatos deberían firmar una carta en la que declaran proteger a la familia y respetar a las personas.

Os invitamos a hacer lo mismo en Italia porque estamos convencidos de que la familia es el lugar mejor para crecer y ser educados.

Estamos convencidos de que la familia es la célula base de la sociedad y que la familia asegura el futuro y el progreso del país.

El 21 de octubre pasado publiqué un libro titulado HOMOSEXUAL contra el matrimonio “para todos”. Esta publicación ha sido censurada por los medios de comunicación por la presión ejercida por el lobby LGBT.

Este lobby me acusa de ser un traidor porque no pienso igual que los dos mil gais de París. Es una actitud completamente homofóbica por su parte. Significa que un homosexual no puede ni pensar ni actuar autónomamente.

Más grave es el hecho de que he recibido amenazas de muerte en la web. ¿Quién es homófobo, La Manif Pour Tous o ellos?

Nosotros ciudadanos italianos o franceses, hombres y mujeres razonables, homosexuales o heterosexuales, proseguiremos nuestro camino de hombres responsables que quieren dejar tras de sí un planeta donde los hombres con H mayúscula no sean un bien comercial.

La denominada libertad, querida por algunos, no debe condenar al hombre y su diversidad. El derecho a la diferencia debe seguir siendo la única libertad del ser humano. ¡La naturaleza es la única que puede vigilar!

Por eso, La Manif Pour Tous os da las gracias por haber creado La Manif Pour Tous Italia. Os agradezco de corazón vuestra calorosa acogida. Gracias a todos, nos volveremos a ver pronto, con ocasión de una gran manifestación europea. ¡No renunciaremos nunca!

(Traducción de Helena Faccia Serrano, Alcalá de Henares)   

Authentic Feminine Excellence - by Angela Miceli

In TPD

In her recent First Things article, Elizabeth Corey makes a bold critique of contemporary feminism. She argues that we contemporary women, as inheritors of feminism, have been told that we can “have it all,” that we ought to pursue excellence in the same manner as men—that is, in our education and in our careers. But, we have discovered, these pursuits come at a high cost.

“Why Women Still Can’t Have It All,” the 2012 Atlantic article by tenured Princeton Professor Anne-Marie Slaughter, illustrates this cost. Even though Slaughter was director of policy planning at the State Department, her dream job, she found herself more concerned with the day-to-day issues of her son’s life than with her high-profile government work. Her achievement of professional excellence, she realized, came at the cost of her family relationships.

Are women willing to sacrifice family and relationships to pursue and achieve such excellence? Is such a sacrifice worth it? And can we women really have it all?

For Corey, there is simply “no happy harmony” for women. Women cannot have it all, and they will never reconcile the pursuit of personal excellence in a profession and family life. She argues that the virtues required for pursuing excellence are antithetical to the virtues required for family life. Excellence in the development of one’s talents and career requires a focus solely on oneself, a “self-culture.” Family life requires an opposite disposition, a sacrificial gift of self that cannot be reconciled with what is necessary for personal achievement. There is no possible balance between these two radically different “orientations of the self,” Corey concludes.

Corey’s article assumes that there is simply no way for a woman to participate in the workplace, in the public sphere, in the pursuit of any excellence while also engaging the kind of self-gift necessary for the flourishing of her family. Perhaps she is right.  According to a recent Forbes poll, a majority of women, even among those with advanced degrees from top universities, would prefer to stay at home with their children.

But even the ones who stay at home don’t “have it all” either. The author of the prominent Harvard Homemaker blog writes of being harshly criticized by some readers for “wasting” her top-quality education on childrearing and homemaking. Educated women who choose to stay at home are often scorned for purportedly refusing to develop their talents or to contribute their gifts to the world.

Admittedly, Corey’s analysis resonates with the experience of many. Although she may be right in arguing that there is no perfect work/life balance for women, I am less certain of Corey’s premise that there exist two radically opposed and ultimately irreconcilable ways of being. Why does Corey assume that the pursuit of a woman’s excellences and talents is limited to the office or the university? She assumes that excellence requires a radical focus on self. But is it even possible for us to pursue excellence outside our relationships?

Corey fails to acknowledge that we actually achieve our excellences through relationships. Is not the very gift of oneself to another a means of achieving a kind of excellence? Perhaps there is a unique, distinctly feminine excellence to be discovered—one that witnesses to the great paradox that all human persons reach their highest excellence through self-gift.

Perhaps we have not adequately explored this idea of a feminine excellence because of accusations of being “gender essentialists.” To be a gender essentialist is considered by most academics to be a great insult. However, I see it as plain common sense: men and women are different. They are not the same. Why, then, should we treat their pursuit of excellence as identical? With respect to professional success, research shows that even though the proportion of women in the workforce has increased, women are still more likely than men to adjust their work schedules to fit the needs of their families.

But perhaps our consideration of authentic feminine excellence has been stifled by something else, the discussion of which is curiously missing in Corey’s article: contraception. With such ready access and widespread use of contraception, women are often tacitly, and sometimes quite explicitly, expected to delay childbearing or forgo it altogether in order to advance their education or their career.

Contraception disrupts the order of marriage, sex, and childrearing. As a result, women often feel tremendous pressure from employers, colleagues, doctors, neighbors, and sometimes even their own friends and family members regarding the number of children they ought to have and when they should have them. If a woman should venture to have more than the respectable one boy and one girl, she is often lectured about the various contraceptive measures she should take to prevent such an “irresponsible” thing from happening again.

It’s all too easy to accept the assumption that families extending beyond one or two children will somehow slow down our economic development, stunt our personal fulfillment, or stifle our personal talents. But the prevalence of this view really reveals that we are in need of some serious self-reflection.

Why do we view other human persons, especially our own children, as stumbling blocks to our own development, fulfillment, and flourishing? How can we expect to explore a truly creative and feminine excellence if we insist that women must pursue and attain excellence in a fashion identical to that of men?

An authentic feminine excellence must include, not preclude, a woman’s ability to bear children. The feminist ideology touting contraception as the key to women’s flourishing has perhaps stifled our creative, innovative exploration of the feminine pursuit of excellence. This false and distorted ideological assumption is the real tragedy, and it is constantly reinforced.

Many current political policies, for example, aim to support such an ideology, as Helen Alvaré has explained. And we export these ideological policies with well-funded vigor to the rest of the world. But perhaps we need to stop for a moment and ask ourselves why we have accepted it in the first place, especially since it has not given us the happiness it promised.

We ought to question the purported value of contraception and abortion, and we should speak more freely about the damage they have caused to women’s health, happiness, and flourishing. We need to challenge the assumption that children are a hindrance to personal development or career advancement. The sacrifices that both women and men must make to raise children are very real, but so are the sacrifices one makes to advance a career or pursue a talent. Why have we idolized careers and talents at the expense of children and human relationships?

As a college student and later a graduate student, I never once had a professor talk with me about how my choice of profession would impact me if I wanted to get married and have children. The assumption is always that if you should marry (or, even worse, get pregnant!), then your future career is over. However, some women are seeking creative solutions to these problems. For example, organizations such as Feminists for Life have established successful university programs and crafted legislation to help mothers who are pursuing higher education.

But of course, we can do much more to help families flourish. We can articulate and live out a vision of marriage that encourages husbands and wives to be attentive to their spouses’ physical, emotional, spiritual, social, and intellectual well-being. We can also nurture relationships within our community. Strong, tight-knit communities can not only help families with childcare, they can also give both mothers and fathers creative options for developing their talents.

I am hopeful that by reconsidering the legacy of the feminist movement, we might be better able to find creative solutions for women, while acknowledging the real sacrifices that must also be made by both women and men. Women might not be able to achieve “a happy harmony,” or to sustain the perfect balance between career and family, since we are indeed limited beings. However, we can happily flourish in the midst of real, concrete human relationships and in the midst of a variety of good and excellent human pursuits.

Papa convence mulher a não abortar e oferece-se para ser padrinho

In RR 

Anna Romano escreveu ao Papa quando soube que estava grávida, mas nunca esperou o telefonema que a convenceu a deixar avançar a gravidez.

 Foi o desespero que levou Anna Romano a escrever ao Papa Francisco. A mulher, italiana, encontrava-se grávida do seu amante, um homem casado, e este já lhe tinha deixado claro que não iria ajudar a criar o bebé, tentando convencê-la a abortar.

Sob pressão, Anna escreveu ao Papa, mais por desabafo do que por outra razão, e foi com grande surpresa que recebeu um telefonema de Francisco.

“Fiquei estupefacta ao telefone. Ouvi-o a falar. Tinha lido a minha carta. Assegurou-me que o bebé é um dom de Deus, um sinal da providência. Disse-me que nunca estaria sozinha”, conta Romano ao jornal italiano “Il Messagero”.

Após alguns minutos de conversa, a futura mãe encontrava-se novamente cheia de esperança e decidida a levar a gravidez até ao fim. “Ele encheu-me o coração de alegria quando me disse que eu era corajosa e forte pelo meu filho”, recorda.

As palavras do Papa foram ainda tranquilizadoras noutro sentido. Anna disse a Francisco que gostaria de baptizar o filho, mas "tinha medo que não fosse possível", por ser "mãe solteira e divorciada". O Papa não só explicou que seria possível baptizá-lo, como se ofereceu para ser ele próprio o padrinho. “Estou convencido que não terá dificuldade em encontrar um pai espiritual, mas, se não conseguir, estou sempre disponível”, disse Francisco.

Compreensivelmente, Anna Romano já fez saber que, se a criança for rapaz, chamar-se-á Francisco.

Desde a sua eleição, o Papa já pegou várias vezes no telefone para falar pessoalmente com pessoas que sabia estarem a passar dificuldades. Um caso envolveu um rapaz cujo irmão tinha sido morto e, mais recentemente, uma mulher argentina vítima de violação.

Woman wakes from coma, finds out she’s 12 weeks pregnant with no memory of father: rejects abortion - by Peter Baklinski

WESTBURY, U.K., August 28, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Imagine waking up in a hospital bed unable to move. Doctors tell you that you were in a freak road accident and have been in a coma for three months. You can’t remember any of it. Actually, you can’t remember anything from the past three years of your life.

Doctors then drop a bombshell, telling you that you are twelve weeks pregnant. 

When Gemma Holmes, 26, heard the news, she remembers being “just in shock”.

ut she chose to keep her baby, despite having no recollection of even being in a relationship. 

“I just thought that if this little baby inside me had managed to survive the awful crash then he was meant to be,” she told ITV’s This Morning. 

Gemma was riding a scooter last year when she became involved in the grisly accident. She was hurled across a busy road into a lamppost, suffering a broken back and severe head injuries. 

She was airlifted to the hospital where doctors did not expect her to survive. 

When tests revealed that she was pregnant, doctors suggested abortion to Gemma’s mom Julie, since prescribed surgeries could not be performed on a pregnant woman. 

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

But Julie would not make the decision to terminate her unborn grandson. 

“So many things went through my head, but I wanted to wait until Gemma was awake to make the decision,” she said. 

Gemma’s ‘yes’ to the life growing inside her broken body caused her excruciating pain, since she was unable to take the usual high doses of painkillers. These might have harmed her baby. 

Doctors told Gemma that she couldn’t have a natural birth because it would likely cause her death. Her broken back would not be able to cope with the contractions. 

But Gemma’s pain and sacrifice paid off when in May she met Ruben Miracle Holmes for the first time, delivered by caesarian section. 

"I couldn't stop crying when they first showed him to me, because he is my little miracle baby. I was just so happy to see him after everything we've been through," she told SWNS.com. 

Both Gemma and Ruben are doing well. Gemma, who now gets around in a wheelchair and is cared for by her mother, says that doctors will in a few months do surgery on her back that may one day allow her to get back on her feet. 

“Ruben's my little miracle and I really hope I will one day be able to run around with him,” she said. 

For Gemma, choosing life meant choosing happiness. 

"Rueben is the best thing to ever happen to me. I may not remember how he came to me but I've got the rest of our lives to make up for that," she told Reveal.co.uk in May.

Boosters of same-sex parenting rely heavily on sociologists’ surveys. But do these really prove their case? - by Walter R. Schumm

In MercatorNet 

As a sociologist my life is all about creating, taking and interpreting surveys of attitudes and opinions. So I sometimes feel a bit depressed at how knuckle-headed the media can be when reporting about research on same-sex marriage. Let’s look at a slogan which is being repeated over and over: Same-sex parents are just as good at parenting as heterosexuals. This looks simple -- but its simplicity is deceptive. Let me unpack it for you.

What is meant by “same-sex”? 

Two sisters living together to save money, raising children from former husbands who died at a young age? Two bisexual women with children from previous marriages to men? Two lesbians who have each conceived a child by sperm donation? Two gay men who have adopted a child jointly?

Different situations can impact children very differently; thus, it is risky to subsume them all under the one label of “same-sex parent”. Does it mean that one parent had some same-sex experience as a teenager but now is heterosexual? Does it mean that one parent identifies as heterosexual but engages in gay affairs just for the sex? Sexual orientation is defined by attraction, behavior, and identity, with all combinations in between. Does it mean a woman who was raped at age six and became lesbian out of a hatred for her rapist? Does it mean a woman who feels she can be a better mother with another woman at her side rather than a man? Or, are we talking about someone who identifies as a “gay” man because he has found he has no sexual attraction to women or to men?

What is meant by “good”?

Does it mean they are provided adequate nutrition? Does it mean they are growing up with no plans on having sex until they marry? Does it mean they plan on cohabiting before they marry? Are they being raised to believe that they can marry a man or a woman when they marry? To what extent do the children believe in and practice delayed gratification? Are their gender roles distinct from those of the opposite sex? Are they growing up to love and serve God, putting that before personal pleasure or satisfaction? Does it mean they are academically prepared to succeed at the university?

What is meant by “just as”?

Does it mean that in a comparison of two biased non-random convenience samples, small in size, that there was an effect size difference that was moderate in magnitude but not statistically significant? Does it mean that there was a national random sample from which groups were compared with adequate statistical power to detect even small effect sizes? Were appropriate statistics used to make the comparisons?

What is meant by “parenting”?

Does it mean the parent is biologically related to the child? Does it mean that the parent spends only one day every two weeks with the child because of custody disputes? Does it mean that the father is the child’s biological father but the father has long ago disappeared and has not seen the child in the past ten years? Does it mean that the parent is “around” but for all practical purposes the child is being raised by a nanny? Does it mean that the parent has so much money that paid employees are, for all practical purposes, raising the child?

What is meant by “heterosexuals”?

Are these folks legally married? Cohabiting? In a civil union? Is the parent heterosexual but parenting alone because of the death or separation from the other person? Are the parents heterosexuals with a per capita family income (two parents earning $40,000 a year with six children) of a tenth of what the per capita family income of the comparison group (eg, one lesbian parent earning $100,000 a year with one child) happens to be?

What does the research say?

What may look simple on the surface can be pretty complicated. Research has been very limited in the past but is getting better. So what do we know?

First, despite continued denials, it appears that children of gay-lesbian-bisexual (GLB) parents are more likely to grow up to engage in same-sex sexual behavior, at least on an experimental basis, or to identify as GLB, than children of heterosexual parents.

This may be related to the evidence that GLB parents are much more flexible about or tolerant of their children adopting a non-heterosexual orientation than are most heterosexual parents. There is some evidence that sexual behavior by heterosexual children of same-sex parents is less traditional (cohabit sooner, more likely to have sex before marriage).

Second, if same-sex parents have long-term stable relationships, their children may do as well in some areas (psychological adjustment, school success), at least as reported by the parent (we have less information in terms of child reports or independent observers). However, same-sex parents (in contrast to same-sex couples, whose relationships may be as stable) appear to have far less stable relationships than heterosexual married, even cohabiting couples. That is, instability may be a problem for children, for both same-sex and heterosexual families. But the risk is greater for the former and their children on average may be disadvantaged.

Third, there is growing evidence that the gender roles of the children of same-sex couples, including adoptive same-sex couples, are more “flexible”. What that means in practice is that among the children of heterosexuals, the most masculine girl scores well below the average score for boys while the most feminine of boys scores well above the average score for girls. Among the children of same-sex parents, it is not uncommon for the most masculine girls to score above the average for boys and for the most feminine of boys to score below the average for girls (ie, much greater overlap of the distributions, which are also closer to each other).

Fourth, there is growing evidence that the children of same-sex couples may be more likely to use or abuse illegal drugs. This may reflect greater such drug usage by homosexuals in general or may reflect less parental training in delayed gratification by same-sex parents. Evidence is mounting that same-sex persons are more likely to have a background of childhood sexual abuse, which might or might not play into how they parent, if they become parents.

Because of selective reporting by most media, it is likely that most readers have never heard of much of this information.

If parents have a DNA relationship to a child, they take better care of the child. (I am referring to research that live-in boyfriends tend to abuse their girlfriend’s children more than do biological fathers.) In the traditional marriage, both parents have a DNA relationship to all of their children. This creates a quandary in that while we want to be supportive of all families and may need to be more supportive of non-DNA families, we really want as a society overall to encourage parenting by stable-relationship parents who are the biological parents of the child.

Who is doing the heavy lifting?

From another angle, we want to reward those in society who do the most difficult “emotional work”. Anyone who has ever tried living with a member of the opposite sex knows that it is emotional work and that it is not always easy.

There are numerous ways in which gender makes for conflict in heterosexual relationships. In terms of happiness in heterosexual relationships, if there are differences, it is most often that the woman is less happy.

It is clear that one result of no-fault divorce has been the feminization of poverty in which women lose much of their socioeconomic status after a divorce, even though they are more often responsible for the care of the children. If we begin to treat same-sex lesbian marriages as the same as heterosexual ones, what are we really telling young women? Go ahead and marry a man because this is good for society (both of you will have a DNA relationship to the child and your relationship will be more stable, which is good for the child) but you will have to accept the risk of a greater likelihood of being unhappy and of being ruined financially if your unhappiness leads to divorce, not to mention all the gender-related or sexuality-related conflicts you will have to endure even if you do not divorce.

But, we will grant the same benefits and respect to other women who bypass all those risks and dangers by hooking up with another woman. Will not this make women who marry men look and feel a bit like fools?

And what about men?

Research is clear that gay men usually feel OK about sex outside a civil union or marriage, often by mutual consent. How often will a heterosexual married man get “mutual” consent from his wife to have an affair? Some recent research with lesbians has found that some of them look forward to marriage precisely because marriage would make having sex outside the marriage easier on the relationship. This is the exact opposite of what occurs for most heterosexual couples. That is, how many heterosexual women look forward to marriage so their husband can start having sex with other women or so they can start having sex with other men?

In other words, one cost of marriage for heterosexuals is sexual restriction, which may involve personal sacrifice. With same-sex marriage, that social norm will decline further in strength, in my estimation.

Thus, heterosexual men and women are doing what society calls for -- but we will be punishing them for it. It’s like telling a soldier: we need you to go and fight the enemy face-to-face 24 hours a day and to risk maiming and death. But we, in order to be “fair”, are going to grant the same respect, rank, promotions, or veterans benefits and privileges to soldiers who stayed home and worked only eight hours a day out of air conditioned buildings.

The challenge of proving the “harm”

The evidence, including my own research, suggests that same-sex couples are happier than opposite-sex couples. And why not? Sociology can only capture part of the spectrum of human happiness. If a survey defines it as fewer hassles, less conflict over gender-related issues or sexuality issues, more disposable income and less fretting about children, what would you expect?

But if we grant same-sex couples equality, we will create a grander inequality for the far larger proportion of society who accept the “challenges” (ie, the greater risks and costs) of living heterosexually while providing society with greater benefits in terms of greater stability and care for their own biologically-related children.

If you say “prove the harm”, I say, OK, how would you prove harm if all combat pay and decorations were eliminated in order to be “fair” and to create equality for non-combat soldiers? After all, some soldiers may not feel they were “born for” combat, may not feel attracted to it, may feel unsuited for it, yet they are soldiers. Surely they deserve the same respect, honor, and compensation?

If all benefits were “equalized”, and the military found it more difficult to get volunteers for battle, it could always be blamed on something else. If re-enlistment rates went down, it would be blamed on inadequate retention pay. The military could demand that all soldiers face combat. If the soldiers who were forced into combat against their will didn’t perform well, it could be blamed on bad leadership at the unit level.

I am not sure you could ever prove harm to the satisfaction of those who demanded the elimination of all differential pay and benefits for combat veterans versus non-combat veterans.

Proving the “harm” of same-sex marriage is similar. No matter what you find in the research, it will be denigrated and dismissed by those in favor of same-sex marriage. The reality is that US states are aligned on a sexual freedom continuum that includes a number of matters (sex before marriage, cohabitation, same-sex marriage, acceptance of divorce, etc.) related to the so-called Second Demographic Transition. Trying to separate the effects of same-sex marriage from the entire cluster of changes is like asking which bee of the five that stung you did the most damage. No matter what, the other four bees can almost always be blamed more than the fifth bee.

It is my opinion that for a social system to work optimally, everyone should play by the same rules, with a few exceptions (eg, disabilities). Marriage has traditionally meant sexual fidelity, at least in principle. It has meant two people of different genders working through gender conflicts. It has meant two people committing themselves to each other for a lifetime. It has meant having children that are biologically related to both parents or being supportive of others who have such children. It has meant raising children who are not ashamed of being a boy or a girl.

If we are to begin saying that sexual fidelity is not really all that important, that having children is not all that important, that accepting gender role conflicts is something to bypass if possible, that gender roles are not all that important for children, or that long-term relationship stability is not all that important, we are really saying this: people can pick and choose which rules to play by with the right to reject any rules, restrictions, or limits that they don’t like.

Allowing everyone to make up their own rules may sound like a wonderful freedom, but consider what would happen if football was played with no rules or no referees? What if the Geneva Conventions for warfare were handled that way (it’s up to each soldier to follow or not follow them, with no consequences either way)? What if children could choose what homework assignments to do or not do? Even those who are pro-gay recognize this principle latently when they criticize how some places allow same-sex marriage and others do not (ie, the rules/laws change from place to place and are not the same for everybody).

If folks want the same benefits of marriage, they should be willing to play by the same rules. Research tells us that this is not the case at present and logic suggests it may never be. If the rules do not matter any longer or if everyone can make up their own rules as they go along, the meaning of marriage changes substantially from what it has been traditionally.

As a sociologist my life is all about creating, taking and interpreting surveys of attitudes and opinions. So I sometimes feel a bit depressed at how knuckle-headed the media can be when reporting about research on same-sex marriage. Let’s look at a slogan which is being repeated over and over: Same-sex parents are just as good at parenting as heterosexuals. This looks simple -- but its simplicity is deceptive. Let me unpack it for you.
What is meant by “same-sex”?
Two sisters living together to save money, raising children from former husbands who died at a young age? Two bisexual women with children from previous marriages to men? Two lesbians who have each conceived a child by sperm donation? Two gay men who have adopted a child jointly?
Different situations can impact children very differently; thus, it is risky to subsume them all under the one label of “same-sex parent”. Does it mean that one parent had some same-sex experience as a teenager but now is heterosexual? Does it mean that one parent identifies as heterosexual but engages in gay affairs just for the sex? Sexual orientation is defined by attraction, behavior, and identity, with all combinations in between. Does it mean a woman who was raped at age six and became lesbian out of a hatred for her rapist? Does it mean a woman who feels she can be a better mother with another woman at her side rather than a man? Or, are we talking about someone who identifies as a “gay” man because he has found he has no sexual attraction to women or to men?
What is meant by “good”?
Does it mean they are provided adequate nutrition? Does it mean they are growing up with no plans on having sex until they marry? Does it mean they plan on cohabiting before they marry? Are they being raised to believe that they can marry a man or a woman when they marry? To what extent do the children believe in and practice delayed gratification? Are their gender roles distinct from those of the opposite sex? Are they growing up to love and serve God, putting that before personal pleasure or satisfaction? Does it mean they are academically prepared to succeed at the university?
What is meant by “just as”?
Does it mean that in a comparison of two biased non-random convenience samples, small in size, that there was an effect size difference that was moderate in magnitude but not statistically significant? Does it mean that there was a national random sample from which groups were compared with adequate statistical power to detect even small effect sizes? Were appropriate statistics used to make the comparisons?
What is meant by “parenting”?
Does it mean the parent is biologically related to the child? Does it mean that the parent spends only one day every two weeks with the child because of custody disputes? Does it mean that the father is the child’s biological father but the father has long ago disappeared and has not seen the child in the past ten years? Does it mean that the parent is “around” but for all practical purposes the child is being raised by a nanny? Does it mean that the parent has so much money that paid employees are, for all practical purposes, raising the child?
What is meant by “heterosexuals”?
Are these folks legally married? Cohabiting? In a civil union? Is the parent heterosexual but parenting alone because of the death or separation from the other person? Are the parents heterosexuals with a per capita family income (two parents earning $40,000 a year with six children) of a tenth of what the per capita family income of the comparison group (eg, one lesbian parent earning $100,000 a year with one child) happens to be?
What does the research say?
What may look simple on the surface can be pretty complicated. Research has been very limited in the past but is getting better. So what do we know?
First, despite continued denials, it appears that children of gay-lesbian-bisexual (GLB) parents are more likely to grow up to engage in same-sex sexual behavior, at least on an experimental basis, or to identify as GLB, than children of heterosexual parents.
This may be related to the evidence that GLB parents are much more flexible about or tolerant of their children adopting a non-heterosexual orientation than are most heterosexual parents. There is some evidence that sexual behavior by heterosexual children of same-sex parents is less traditional (cohabit sooner, more likely to have sex before marriage).
Second, if same-sex parents have long-term stable relationships, their children may do as well in some areas (psychological adjustment, school success), at least as reported by the parent (we have less information in terms of child reports or independent observers). However, same-sex parents (in contrast to same-sex couples, whose relationships may be as stable) appear to have far less stable relationships than heterosexual married, even cohabiting couples. That is, instability may be a problem for children, for both same-sex and heterosexual families. But the risk is greater for the former and their children on average may be disadvantaged.
Third, there is growing evidence that the gender roles of the children of same-sex couples, including adoptive same-sex couples, are more “flexible”. What that means in practice is that among the children of heterosexuals, the most masculine girl scores well below the average score for boys while the most feminine of boys scores well above the average score for girls. Among the children of same-sex parents, it is not uncommon for the most masculine girls to score above the average for boys and for the most feminine of boys to score below the average for girls (ie, much greater overlap of the distributions, which are also closer to each other).
Fourth, there is growing evidence that the children of same-sex couples may be more likely to use or abuse illegal drugs. This may reflect greater such drug usage by homosexuals in general or may reflect less parental training in delayed gratification by same-sex parents. Evidence is mounting that same-sex persons are more likely to have a background of childhood sexual abuse, which might or might not play into how they parent, if they become parents.
Because of selective reporting by most media, it is likely that most readers have never heard of much of this information.
If parents have a DNA relationship to a child, they take better care of the child. (I am referring to research that live-in boyfriends tend to abuse their girlfriend’s children more than do biological fathers.) In the traditional marriage, both parents have a DNA relationship to all of their children. This creates a quandary in that while we want to be supportive of all families and may need to be more supportive of non-DNA families, we really want as a society overall to encourage parenting by stable-relationship parents who are the biological parents of the child.
Who is doing the heavy lifting?
From another angle, we want to reward those in society who do the most difficult “emotional work”. Anyone who has ever tried living with a member of the opposite sex knows that it is emotional work and that it is not always easy.
There are numerous ways in which gender makes for conflict in heterosexual relationships. In terms of happiness in heterosexual relationships, if there are differences, it is most often that the woman is less happy.
It is clear that one result of no-fault divorce has been the feminization of poverty in which women lose much of their socioeconomic status after a divorce, even though they are more often responsible for the care of the children. If we begin to treat same-sex lesbian marriages as the same as heterosexual ones, what are we really telling young women? Go ahead and marry a man because this is good for society (both of you will have a DNA relationship to the child and your relationship will be more stable, which is good for the child) but you will have to accept the risk of a greater likelihood of being unhappy and of being ruined financially if your unhappiness leads to divorce, not to mention all the gender-related or sexuality-related conflicts you will have to endure even if you do not divorce.
But, we will grant the same benefits and respect to other women who bypass all those risks and dangers by hooking up with another woman. Will not this make women who marry men look and feel a bit like fools?
And what about men?
Research is clear that gay men usually feel OK about sex outside a civil union or marriage, often by mutual consent. How often will a heterosexual married man get “mutual” consent from his wife to have an affair? Some recent research with lesbians has found that some of them look forward to marriage precisely because marriage would make having sex outside the marriage easier on the relationship. This is the exact opposite of what occurs for most heterosexual couples. That is, how many heterosexual women look forward to marriage so their husband can start having sex with other women or so they can start having sex with other men?
In other words, one cost of marriage for heterosexuals is sexual restriction, which may involve personal sacrifice. With same-sex marriage, that social norm will decline further in strength, in my estimation.
Thus, heterosexual men and women are doing what society calls for -- but we will be punishing them for it. It’s like telling a soldier: we need you to go and fight the enemy face-to-face 24 hours a day and to risk maiming and death. But we, in order to be “fair”, are going to grant the same respect, rank, promotions, or veterans benefits and privileges to soldiers who stayed home and worked only eight hours a day out of air conditioned buildings.
The challenge of proving the “harm”
The evidence, including my own research, suggests that same-sex couples are happier than opposite-sex couples. And why not? Sociology can only capture part of the spectrum of human happiness. If a survey defines it as fewer hassles, less conflict over gender-related issues or sexuality issues, more disposable income and less fretting about children, what would you expect?
But if we grant same-sex couples equality, we will create a grander inequality for the far larger proportion of society who accept the “challenges” (ie, the greater risks and costs) of living heterosexually while providing society with greater benefits in terms of greater stability and care for their own biologically-related children.
If you say “prove the harm”, I say, OK, how would you prove harm if all combat pay and decorations were eliminated in order to be “fair” and to create equality for non-combat soldiers? After all, some soldiers may not feel they were “born for” combat, may not feel attracted to it, may feel unsuited for it, yet they are soldiers. Surely they deserve the same respect, honor, and compensation?
If all benefits were “equalized”, and the military found it more difficult to get volunteers for battle, it could always be blamed on something else. If re-enlistment rates went down, it would be blamed on inadequate retention pay. The military could demand that all soldiers face combat. If the soldiers who were forced into combat against their will didn’t perform well, it could be blamed on bad leadership at the unit level.
I am not sure you could ever prove harm to the satisfaction of those who demanded the elimination of all differential pay and benefits for combat veterans versus non-combat veterans.
Proving the “harm” of same-sex marriage is similar. No matter what you find in the research, it will be denigrated and dismissed by those in favor of same-sex marriage. The reality is that US states are aligned on a sexual freedom continuum that includes a number of matters (sex before marriage, cohabitation, same-sex marriage, acceptance of divorce, etc.) related to the so-called Second Demographic Transition. Trying to separate the effects of same-sex marriage from the entire cluster of changes is like asking which bee of the five that stung you did the most damage. No matter what, the other four bees can almost always be blamed more than the fifth bee.
It is my opinion that for a social system to work optimally, everyone should play by the same rules, with a few exceptions (eg, disabilities). Marriage has traditionally meant sexual fidelity, at least in principle. It has meant two people of different genders working through gender conflicts. It has meant two people committing themselves to each other for a lifetime. It has meant having children that are biologically related to both parents or being supportive of others who have such children. It has meant raising children who are not ashamed of being a boy or a girl.
If we are to begin saying that sexual fidelity is not really all that important, that having children is not all that important, that accepting gender role conflicts is something to bypass if possible, that gender roles are not all that important for children, or that long-term relationship stability is not all that important, we are really saying this: people can pick and choose which rules to play by with the right to reject any rules, restrictions, or limits that they don’t like.
Allowing everyone to make up their own rules may sound like a wonderful freedom, but consider what would happen if football was played with no rules or no referees? What if the Geneva Conventions for warfare were handled that way (it’s up to each soldier to follow or not follow them, with no consequences either way)? What if children could choose what homework assignments to do or not do? Even those who are pro-gay recognize this principle latently when they criticize how some places allow same-sex marriage and others do not (ie, the rules/laws change from place to place and are not the same for everybody).
If folks want the same benefits of marriage, they should be willing to play by the same rules. Research tells us that this is not the case at present and logic suggests it may never be. If the rules do not matter any longer or if everyone can make up their own rules as they go along, the meaning of marriage changes substantially from what it has been traditionally.
- See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/unpacking_the_slogans#sthash.ZutCXwtB.dpuf